Three charts to show your right wing brother in law.

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/28/1011405/-Three-Charts-To-Email-To-Your-Right-Wing-Brother-In-Law

I don't know how to post the charts. Can someone help?

[Townsend]

Here you go.



Government spending increased dramatically under Bush.  It has not increased much under Obama.  Note that this chart does not reflect any spending cuts resulting from deficit-cutting deals.
 



Notes, this chart includes Clinton's last budget year for comparison.   
The numbers in these two charts come from Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012.  They are just the amounts that the government spent and borrowed, period,  Anyone can go look then up.  People who claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.



In this chart, the RED lines on the left side -- the ones that keep doing DOWN -- show what happened to jobs under the policies of Bush and the Republicans. We were losing lots and lots of jobs every month, and it was getting worse and worse.  The BLUE lines -- the ones that just go UP -- show what happened to jobs when the stimulus was in effect. We stopped losing jobs and started gaining jobs, and it was getting better and better.  The leveling off on the right side of the chart  shows what happened as the stimulus started to wind down: job creation leveled off at too low a level.
It looks a lot like the stimulus reversed what was going on before the stimulus.

Conclusion: THE STIMULUS WORKED BUT WAS NOT ENOUGH!

More False Things

These are just three of the false things that everyone "knows."  Some others are (click through): Obama bailed out the banks, businesses will hire if they get tax cuts, health care reform cost $1 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme or is "going broke", government spending "takes money out of the economy."

Why This Matters

These things really matter.  We all want to fix the terrible problems the country has.  But it is so important to know just what the problems are before you decide how to fix them.  Otherwise the things you do to try to solve those problems might just make them worse. If you get tricked into thinking that Obama has made things worse and that we should go back to what we were doing before Obama -- tax cuts for the rich, giving giant corporations and Wall Street everything they want -- when those are the things that caused the problems in the first place, then we will be in real trouble.

[AquaMan]

Great headline. I have one of those. And a brother. I will send it to them but not holding out for any enlightenment.

My wife is constantly having to endure patients who blurt out anti-Obama'isms and she is at a loss as to how to respond. I will print this and give it to her.

My advice to her is always the same. Ask them specifically what Obama has done that is destroying America economically. Ask them specifically what it is about the Health Care act that they disagree with, and oh by the way, when exactly does the Health Care act go into effect. Most people can't answer with any specificity because they just don't know. But they know he's doing it all wrong.

To simplify, ask them what reporters are supposed to; who, what, why, when, where? Then ask them where they learned their answers.

Then just smile and nod your head.

[Conan71]

Just goes to show you can use incomplete sets of data to try and create an illusion.  The Bush job losses start in '08 which we all know was the start of one Hell of a recession.  The Obama spending and debt numbers are "estimates".  Instead of reversing the alarming trend of spending under Bush, it's used as justification for even more spending. Curious to know if the '08 to '09 spending included "loans" under TARP and auto bail-outs, anyone know?

[AquaMan]

How is the data incomplete?

I agree that the time frame is arbitrary. It was the first thing I looked for, but not inaccurate, just arbitrarily chosen to make a point.

How is it being used to justify even larger spending? That's a jump from the figures provided.

These numbers could certainly be summarized differently but they are the numbers for that time period. January 2008 was not the beginning of the end of job growth. I remember reports of fears of job decline at least as far back as Katrina.

[Conan71]

How is the data incomplete?

I agree that the time frame is arbitrary. It was the first thing I looked for, but not inaccurate, just arbitrarily chosen to make a point.

How is it being used to justify even larger spending? That's a jump from the figures provided.

These numbers could certainly be summarized differently but they are the numbers for that time period. January 2008 was not the beginning of the end of job growth. I remember reports of fears of job decline at least as far back as Katrina.

One other point largely ignored as well with the uptick in spending starting in 2007, was the House had been taken over by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term.

[RecycleMichael]

One other point largely ignored as well with the uptick in spending starting in 2007, was the House had been taken over by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term.

I guess we can stop blaming Obama then. The House must be totally to credit and to blame.

[Conan71]

I guess we can stop blaming Obama then. The House must be totally to credit and to blame.

The house holds the purse strings...

[Gaspar]

That's some funny stuff right there.

[JeffM]

... "deficits don't matter".... that is, unless there's a Dem in office.... 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

[Conan71]

... "deficits don't matter".... that is, unless there's a Dem in office.... 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer

Jeff, Reagan is so...so... 1988.  You need to get with the times, there's two Bushes to blame since then.

[jacobi]

Reagan said that we would spend the russians into oblivion.  As much as people LOVE that guy, he was a big spending president. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Jeff, Reagan is so...so... 1988.  You need to get with the times, there's two Bushes to blame since then.

But it all started with Reagan.  Goes to the whole point that I rant on so much about the lack of a sense or knowledge of history.  But, hey, history is not kind to the writers of "The Script" now, is it?

[Conan71]

But it all started with Reagan.  Goes to the whole point that I rant on so much about the lack of a sense or knowledge of history.  But, hey, history is not kind to the writers of "The Script" now, is it?

But you see, Keynesians should be really happy about this and exploit it as that spending coincided with one of the largest economic expansions this country has ever seen.

I don't believe Reagan thought other presidents would continue to borrow heavily to supplement their budgets.  He actually did follow the Keynes model to a degree if you consider the deficit spending as well as tax cuts to put money in the hands of consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, and corporations.  Either his fiscal policies got the 1970's era trainwreck he inherited back on track or it simply was fortunate enough to  coincide with new technologies which rapidly developed in the 1980s like personal computers and all sorts of innovations made possible by integrated circuitry.  Much of the same can be said about the Clinton years, was he fortunate enough to preside as the internet, bio-tech, and telecom all took off during that time, or were his fiscal policies that sound?  I suspect it was a combination of both for each president. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

But you see, Keynesians should be really happy about this and exploit it as that spending coincided with one of the largest economic expansions this country has ever seen.

I don't believe Reagan thought other presidents would continue to borrow heavily to supplement their budgets.  He actually did follow the Keynes model to a degree if you consider the deficit spending as well as tax cuts to put money in the hands of consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, and corporations.  Either his fiscal policies got the 1970's era trainwreck he inherited back on track or it simply was fortunate enough to  coincide with new technologies which rapidly developed in the 1980s like personal computers and all sorts of innovations made possible by integrated circuitry.  Much of the same can be said about the Clinton years, was he fortunate enough to preside as the internet, bio-tech, and telecom all took off during that time, or were his fiscal policies that sound?  I suspect it was a combination of both for each president.  

Oh, puleeezzzeee!!!

You do realize that Clinton's was the largest, longest and added the most jobs.  (The economic expansion that is...)

Kennedy/Johnson was second.

Reagan's was third.  With the largest tax hikes in the history of the world right after his tax cuts.  But somehow that little fact never seems to make it into the propaganda pages of "The Script".  Why do you suppose that is??  Yeah, he was the only privileged one who somehow had the "right" to make massive deficits, because no one else would continue it.  What is that supposed to mean?

And the 70's trainwreck was a direct result of wage/price controls that Nixon (another Republican) put in place, plus the winding down of the war.  Ever notice how the economy always goes into recession after a war?  Ford tried to help and it didn't work, and Jimmie just got bulldozed by it.  But hey, nothing like a little revisionist history to cater to "The Scripters".